Very disappointed in the SuperSix Evo. I test rode the smallest two sizes, I can ride either size depending on different stem/seatpost configurations. The bike rides very sluggishly. It requires enormous effort to turn. While climbing it requires a a lot of attention, the front-end is goes all over the place. Maybe the situation is different on the bigger sizes. But the smallest two sized have quite a bit of trail 6.6 and 6.3. What were they thinking!

I wish companies would stop be being cheap, and just use different fork rakes for different frame sizes.

"best bike in the world"This was the quote from Tour Magazine of Germany after exhaustively testing over 2000 frames in the last 10 years on their quest to find the world’s best bike. With its near-perfect balance of light weight, stiffness, comfort, handling and low aero drag, the SuperSix EVO Ultimate has won the most prestigious magazine award in the world AND claimed the GOLD award at Eurobike which is the most prestigious bicycle industry award. (plus it pulls a mean mono!)

This is so wrong. Who are you that you are noodling around a top end carbon frame? I was going to do the exact same thing as metanoize and point out that Sagan is dominating on this bike, undoubtably a more powerful rider than you.

Sorry, are you asking me? If yes I have few steel and ti bike, all are custom, and their geo produces rakes between 57&58. I personally feel a bike is a lot more agile with that type of rake whether it is small or large.

I'm trying out carbon bikes to see if there is something I might like. Next up I'm testing a Felt F1. Looking at their small frames geo, I think they got it right.

Sorry, but this thread is somewhat useless. It's not really even a review. Your comments and criticisms really don't hold any weight or validation, especially against the tremendous amount of marketing hype the bike has (regardless if it's just all marketing BS anyway, which I do slightly feel like it is)

Very disappointed in the SuperSix Evo. I test rode the smallest two sizes, I can ride either size depending on different stem/seatpost configurations. The bike rides very sluggishly. It requires enormous effort to turn. While climbing it requires a a lot of attention, the front-end is goes all over the place. Maybe the situation is different on the bigger sizes. But the smallest two sized have quite a bit of trail 6.6 and 6.3. What were they thinking!

I wish companies would stop be being cheap, and just use different fork rakes for different frame sizes.

Metanoize it isn't just you. Nibali would actually agree with you.

Quote:

"Apparently, at the previous evening’s dinner Nibali had confided to him that the EVO felt slower than his old bike, but that he also felt fresher at the end of rides on the new machine"

Quote:

we found the frame felt slightly sluggish

Quote:

Peck says the sluggish feeling is likely the Speed Save design working; by absorbing bumps rather than deflecting, it actually makes the bike faster.

To give you another perspective about my feeling about the SuperSix evo, please read this, it will still apply to road bikes even though written about triathlon bikes. He even explicitly fingers out Cannondale for their bad design decisions when it comes to small bikes.

so your comparing a production frame built for the masses against a one of custom built specifically for you? For reference what other carbon bikes have you tried? If all your custom bikes are so perfect why not take the Geometery and get one laid up in Carbon? And what is so special about you to make you need "custom" geometry...

the verbage for the icon up there is roll, but I feel it might be missing a letter.

BTW I have in the stable a Medium Niner One9, a 54cm Cervelo R5 and a 55cm Bianchi San Jose (single speed+steel+cyclocross=bad ass tank) Never Ridden a supersix, but other cannondales I've tested truly "carved" for me I felt like I was on an Ice Skate, so I think they probably have a clue about geometery besides generic numbers on a chart which seems to be all that matters to some on this forum. All my bikes are probably sized up a size as I am about 5'6" with a 30" inseam, and only the niner has felt sluggish on tight singletrack trails, in which any wheels damn near a yard in diameter would probably feel a little sluggish on.

so your comparing a production frame built for the masses against a one of custom built specifically for you? For reference what other carbon bikes have you tried? If all your custom bikes are so perfect why not take the Geometery and get one laid up in Carbon? And what is so special about you to make you need "custom" geometry...

the verbage for the icon up there is roll, but I feel it might be missing a letter.

BTW I have in the stable a Medium Niner One9, a 54cm Cervelo R5 and a 55cm Bianchi San Jose (single speed+steel+cyclocross=bad ass tank) Never Ridden a supersix, but other cannondales I've tested truly "carved" for me I felt like I was on an Ice Skate, so I think they probably have a clue about geometery besides generic numbers on a chart which seems to be all that matters to some on this forum. All my bikes are probably sized up a size as I am about 5'6" with a 30" inseam, and only the niner has felt sluggish on tight singletrack trails, in which any wheels damn near a yard in diameter would probably feel a little sluggish on.

Nothing special about me, maybe shorter femuer, longish torso. I've the same inseam. I don't like big bikes like you I like small and aggressive geo. I wanted to try factory bikes, I've tried Wilier, Specialized Tarmac SL4 and the SuperSix evo, basically all 3 had similar sluggish feel (again we're talking small geo here). Somehow I don't feel like spending lots of money on a custom carbon bike, but would happy to do so on a steel or Ti

Sorry, are you asking me? If yes I have few steel and ti bike, all are custom, and their geo produces rakes between 57&58. I personally feel a bike is a lot more agile with that type of rake whether it is small or large.

I'm trying out carbon bikes to see if there is something I might like. Next up I'm testing a Felt F1. Looking at their small frames geo, I think they got it right.

Do you mean trail here? That makes sense to me. My bike has a trail of 55 and feels pretty good but I would like to try different trails to get a feel for the difference it makes. Best steering I ever had was a custom steely years ago and I didn't keep the steering stats for it, bugger! I too ride small frames usually 50 to 52. I'd like to try an Evo.

Sorry, are you asking me? If yes I have few steel and ti bike, all are custom, and their geo produces rakes between 57&58. I personally feel a bike is a lot more agile with that type of rake whether it is small or large.

I'm trying out carbon bikes to see if there is something I might like. Next up I'm testing a Felt F1. Looking at their small frames geo, I think they got it right.

Do you mean trail here? That makes sense to me. My bike has a trail of 55 and feels pretty good but I would like to try different trails to get a feel for the difference it makes. Best steering I ever had was a custom steely years ago and I didn't keep the steering stats for it, bugger! I too ride small frames usually 50 to 52. I'd like to try an Evo.

Yep, I mean trail. Low number for a fork rake produces higher trail, and that is the case with the SuperEvo.

@metanoize: If you want a Cannondale SuperSix Evo in a smaller size to handle similarly to your custom frames then the best thing to do is exchange the fork to one with a rake that better suits your desired trail/handling. Perhaps this can serve as a reference (see 'I').

And all SuperSix Evo's are specced with the same fork with a rake of 45mm. I think I understand what the OP is trying to say. If I'm not mistaken Nibali rode a 56cm, so that argument doesn't really hold when specifically addressing the issue of trial and handling.

A 45mm rake fork in a 73º head tube has my preference compared to the more commonly specified 43mm rake, which produces a trail of nearly 59mm. I know the difference since I had bikes with either. Currently, I have an Alpha-Q GS30 with 44mm rake in a Spooky Skeletor with 73º HT angle, which is dead in the middle. It rides exactly how I want it to and is predictable since the bike goes where I point it to without having to "work the bike". If I understand correctly, this is what metanoize tried to illustrate.

Ps. I do feel that the title of the SuperSix Evo being sluggish unnecessarily polarizing, since the bikes handle so differently in different sizes. In fact, a 54cm would be a perfect fit for my 1m83 frame with a required bar drop of about 16cm. Head tubes longer than 140mm make a frame unsuitable for me and are out of the question. I had big problems trying to make my Scott Addict fit correctly until I found a stem of 130x-10º with a low enough stack height, which was all due to the 140mm head tube actually being 1cm higher due to the longer fork stack height.

_________________“I always find it amazing that a material can actually sell a product when it’s really the engineering that creates and dictates how well that material will behave or perform.” — Chuck Teixeira

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum